HAP-FAST: a feasibility study incorporating qualitative, mechanistic and costing sub-studies alongside a randomised pilot trial comparing chest x-ray to low-dose CT scan and empirical antibiotics to antibiotics guided by the BIOFIRE® FILM ARRAY® pneumonia plus panel in adults with suspected non-ventilator-associated hospital-cquired pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (nv-HAP) is the most common healthcare-associated infection (HCAI), is associated with high mortality and morbidity and places a major burden on healthcare systems. Diagnosis currently relies on chest x-rays to confirm pneumonia and sputum cultures to determine the microbiological cause. This approach leads to over-diagnosis of pneumonia, rarely identifies a causative pathogen and perpetuates unnecessary and imprecise antibiotic use. The HAP-FAST study aims to evaluate the feasibility of a randomised trial to evaluate the clinical impact of low-dose, non-contrast-enhanced thoracic CT scans and rapid molecular sputum analysis using the BIOFIRE® FILMARRAY® pneumonia plus panel (FAPP) for patients suspected with nv-HAP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HAP-FAST feasibility study consists of a pilot randomised trial, a qualitative study, a costing analysis and exploratory analyses of clinical samples to investigate the immune-pathophysiology of HAP. Participants are identified and recruited from four acute hospitals in the Northwest of the UK. Using a Research Without Prior Consent model, the pilot trial will recruit 220 adult participants, with or without mental capacity, and with suspected HAP. HAP-FAST is a non-blinded, sequential, multiple assignment, randomised trial with two possible stages of randomisation: first, chest x-ray (CXR) or CT; second, if treated as nv-HAP, FAPP or standard microbiological processing alone (no FAPP). Pathogen-specific antibiotic guidance will be provided for FAPP results. Randomisation uses a web-based platform and followed up for 90 days. The feasibility of a future trial will be determined by assessing trial processes, outcome measures and patient and staff experiences. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has undergone combined review by the UK NHS Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals, via the funders' website and through a range of media to engage the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05483309.

Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are underserved in randomised controlled trials, yet they experience a much greater burden of disease compared with patients from socioeconomically advantaged areas. It is crucial to make trials more inclusive to ensure that treatments and interventions are safe and effective in real-world contexts. Improving how information about trials is verbally communicated is an unexplored strategy to make trials more inclusive. This study examined how trials are communicated verbally, comparing consultations involving patients from the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. METHODS: Secondary qualitative analysis of 55 trial consultation transcripts from 41 patients, sampled from 3 qualitative studies embedded in their respective UK multi-site, cancer-related randomised controlled trials. Patients living in the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, defined using English Indices of Multiple Deprivation decile scores, were purposively sampled. Analysis was largely thematic and drew on the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Recruiters communicated clinical uncertainty in a similar way for patients living in different socioeconomic areas. Consultations with disadvantaged patients were, on average, half the duration of those with advantaged patients, and tended to involve recruiters providing less in-depth explanations of trial concepts, used phrasing that softened trial arm risks, and described trial processes (e.g. randomisation) using informal or metaphorical phrasing. Disadvantaged and advantaged patients differed in the concerns they expressed; disadvantaged patients voiced fewer concerns and asked fewer questions but were also less likely to be invited to do so by recruiters. CONCLUSION: Interactions about trials unfolded in different ways between patients living in different socioeconomic areas, likely due to both patient- and recruiter-related factors. We present considerations for recruiters when discussing trials with patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, aimed at enhancing trial communication. Future research should examine disadvantaged patients' and recruiters' experiences of verbal trial communication to inform guidance that addresses the needs and preferences of underserved groups.